. (oZ- 



014 014 376 5 O 



Hollioger 

pH 8J 

Mm Run I!03'2193 



F 73 
.62 

.04 07 
Copy 1 



Tax-Exemption 

No Excuse for Spoliation 



CONSIDERATIONS IN OPPOSITION TO THE PETITION, NOW BEFORE THE 
MASSACHUSETTS LEGISLATURE, TO PERMIT THE 
SALE OF THE 



OLD SOUTH CLIUECLI 

BY 

JOSIAH PHILLIPS QUINCY. 



" We shall set up within the church a lottery of such prizes as are tlie direct inviting causes 
of avarice and ambition ; both unnecess.ary and harmful to be proposed, and most easy, most con- 
venient, and needful to be removed." — Johx Milton. 



BOSTON: 

PUBLISHED BY THE 

PROPRIETORS OF "OLD AND NEW." 

1874. 



T73 



TAX.-EXEMPTION NO EXCUSE FOE SPOLIATION, 



TAX-EXEMPTION 

NO EXCUSE .FOR SPOLIATION. 



It is well known thnt petitions have been presented to the General Court of 
Massachusetts, praying fur the repeal of those clauses in our statutes which prohibit 
the collection of taxes from corporations claiming to be religious, educational, or 
benevolent. This movement against tax-exemption, which has found its ablest 
advocate in an Orthodox journal of wide circulation, has no connection with any 
special form of belief or unbelief, and has nothing to do with any theory respecting 
the propriety of granting State aid to corporate bodies. It asserts only that this 
form of State aid is unjustifiable and dangerous. It seeks to call the attention of 
legislators to the present injustice of our exemption-laws, and to the evils with 
which they threaten our future. But while many good men feel strongly, and 
even bitterly, the impolicy of these laws, all wise men must unite in opposing their 
immediate and unconditional abolition. Any one but a fanatic must see that it 
would be inexpedient — and inexpedient, because it would be unjust — to assess 
the Institute of Technology or tlie noble Catholic Cathedral upon Washington 
Street on their property valuation in the coming May. The penalties of injudi- 
cious legislation cannot be remitted by drawing the pen through a bad law. If 
taxes are ever to be assessed upon existing corporations now exempted, they must 
come very gradually, after due warning, and as part of a statesmanlike scheme of 
economic reform. I offer three suggestions, which embody all the legislation which 
seems to me desirable at the present time. 

First, That, so far as regards all corporations hereafter to he created, this 
objectionable form of State aid shall be abolished. If assistance is to be given 
them, it shall take the form of direct appropriation. 

Second, That no existing corporation shall be permitted, upon sale of exempted 
property, to appropriate its increased value for secular or nou'charitable purposes ; 
except such corporations as shall ebct to purchase this right by paying, principal 
and interest, all taxes which have been remitted to them. 

Third, That a commission be appointed to consider what may be the just 
claims of tax-exempted corporations upon the State ; and also how that mode of 
State assistance may be finally abolished with the least possible injury to the reli- 
gious and educational interests of the Commonwealth, and to the just property 
interests of any special class of her citizens ; and that this commission shall report 
to some future legislature. 



6 

The legislation above indicated would give a reasonable protection to the public, 
and would interfere with the existing rights of no one. It is, however, to the 
second suggestion, that I ask especial attention; for this touches, not tax-exemp- 
tion in itself, but a most flagrant abuse of that privilege. Many joersons who find 
nothing objectionable in the principle of exemption from taxation will heartily con- 
demn a wrong for which it is in no wise responsible. The remarks that I bave to 
offer upon this subject may be introduced by quoting a statement of that very relia- 
ble journal "The Boston Daily Advertiser," From the issue of Sept. 26, I cut 
this paragraph : — 

" The old Congregational Church at Litchfield, Conn., has been turned into an 
opera-house ; and they now dance under the shadow of Dr. Lyman Beecher's 
pulpit." 

I do not trust myself to speak of the taste that would condemn to such uses a 
venerable edifice hallowed by the worship of God, and associated with a distin- 
guished family whose fame is dear to all Americans. There is, to be sure, dancing 
and dancing. The memorable saltation of King David before the ark was, doubt- 
loss, a modest and improving performance that might not have been out of place 
■' under the shadow of Dr. Lyman Beecher's pulpit." As for the opera-dancing 
that at present goes on there, one can only hope that the shadow cast upon it is a 
pretty deep one. But, however offensive to sensitive people may be the spectacle 
of an ecclesiastical corporation running a venerable church as a dance-house or a 
post-office, it is only as an outrage upon property, that they have a right to demand 
the interference of the legislator.' I claim that no equitable interpretation of our 
exemption-laws permits these enormous spoliations. The intention of these laws 
must be ascertained by a consideration of the circumstances which gave them birth, 
as well as by principles notoriously professed by modern legislators who keep them 
upon our statute-book. The original value paid for certain lands as church-lots 
was exempted from taxation. Their constantly-increasing value as sites for opera- 
houses, post-ofl5ces, or stores, was never exempted. It was not taxed, because it 
was assumed not to exist. The church was regarded by the legislator as a per- 
petual church, never as a possible theatre. When ecclesiastical corporations appro- 
priate this latter value, they use their exemption-privilege for a purpose for which 
it never was designed. They possess themselves of the people's wealth, for which 
they have given no compensation. 

In examining the purpose and scope of our exemption-laws, I shall not hesitate 
to use abundant, and perhaps tedious illustration. Owing to the complex nature 
of the subject, it may be difficult to bring the real facts before the minds of some 
of our voters who are unaccustomed to economical considerations. In making the 
attempt, something will be borrowed from a paper upon the Secularization of Church- 
Lands, which I contributed to the last May number of 3Ir. Hale's magazine. The 
question we have to consider is this : Given our exemption-laws, how should equity 
and common sense interpret them in dealing with valuable churches thrown upon 
the market by their proprietors ? Let me put a case. 

John and James take money earned by their labor, and saved by their self- 
denial, and with it buy adjoining lots, and put up buildings. Each spends, we will 



say, ten thousand dollars. John builds a church : James builds a dwelling-house. 
Tliey call upon their legislator to ask what he will do for them. The answer they 
receive from him amounts to this : — 

"As I am bound to carry out the laws upon the statute-book, I shall exempt 
from taxation the ten thousand dollars that John has earned, and put into a church ; 
or, what amounts*to the same thing, I shall tax it, but I shall require James, 
Charles, Patrick, and the rest of the people in the directory, to pay tbe tax. The 
ten thousand dollars that James has earned, and invested in a dwelling-house, I 
shall tax him for every year." 

So far, all is perfectly clear. At the end of twenty years, James calls upon 
his legislator ; and the following conversation ensues : — 

James. — I am hardly used. My hoase, which cost ten thousand dollars, is now 
taxed upon a valuation of twenty-five thousand. Nothing has been added to its 
utility as a dwelling ; it is not as good as it was twenty years ago : and yet I have 
been required to work harder and harder every year in order to pay a constantly 
increasing tax upon it. And, if I cannot do this, you threaten to turn me out of 
doors. I built this house as a convenient residence for myself and my family. 
Suppose my grandson occupies it one hundred years from to-day, please to consider 
the immense sum (over and above our tax on ten thousand dollars) that we shall 
have paid the State(!) 

Legislator. — It is evident, my friend, that you have not considered the nature 
of property in real estate. To the ten thousand dollars earned by your labor is 
now added a valae of fifteen thousand, resulting from the labor of other people. 
You can demand this increased value by putting your land into the market ; and it 
is right that you should make an annual payment to the community for the privi- 
lege. I grant, that, if your grandson occupies this house one hundred years from 
to-day, you and your representatives will have paid, principal and interest, an enor- 
mous sum of money to the State. But you must remember that every thing you 
pay (above the just tax on your original ten thousand dollars) is in the nature of 
an investment. Your payments resemble deposits in a bank, which you have the 
privilege of withdrawing upon writing a check. In the case of real estate, your 
check is written in the form of a deed of sale. If, at the end of a hundred years, 
your grandson sells your house-lot as a site for a merchant's exchange, he will with- 
draw from the community some compensation for the taxes that I shall compel you 
and your family to pay. 

James. — I acknowledge that this is just. You arc now taxing my house-lot upon 
its increased value as potentially a store-lot. But why not tax my neighbor John 
for the increased value of his land ? I do not ask you to tax him upon the ten 
thousand dollars which he earned ; for that sum is forever exempted : but how can 
you, with any show of reason, omit to tax the unearned fifteen thousand dollars 
which he has now the privilege of taking from the community by selling his land as 
a store-lot. 

Legislator. — I do not tax JohiT's church-lot upon its increased value as poten- 
tially a store-lot; because I assume that it is forever consecrated to religious uses, 
and never can be a store-lot. 



8 

Now I venture to say that the answer here given is the only one which a legisla- 
tor who was acquainted with the history of our exemption-laws, and acknowledged 
the principles which underlie American government, could possibly make. It is 
plain that the worth of a commodity for a particular purpose may be given to per- 
sons of high moral character under an implied understanding that it shall not be 
used for any other purpose. If a bishop, in his ecclesiastical (fapacity, accepts a 
free ticket fjjom a railroad-company, it is easy to see that he is entitled only to that 
portion of its value which may aid him in discharging his episcopal function upon 
the line of the road. He has no right to sell his free pass for what it would be 
worth to an expressman. Let us consider a parallel case between individuals. The 
editor of a journal, being desirous to promote the moral welfare of the community, 
offers a clergyman one of his columns every week in order that he may print his 
sermon. The reverend gentleman sends a few discourses, and then calls at the 
office to say that he has decided to sell his weekly column for what it may be worth 
to advertisers. He condescends to add, that the sum he expects to realize will be 
useful in publishing an edition de luxe of his sermons, on cream-laid paper, bound 
in red morocco. Editors are mild and long-suifeiing men; yet I fear that the reply 
that would be elicited by so extraordinary a proposition could not be printed with- 
out several dashes. 

If there is a distinctive American principle, understood by every schoolboy, it is 
that any State favor shown to religious associations must give no unequal aid in 
propagating the different creeds held by the churches ; and, if a given interpreta- 
tion of the exemption-law must always violate this principle, it is not one that our 
legislators can be supposed to countenance. An illustration will make plain the 
violation I allege. 

Paul and Peter build churches in villages ten miles apart. Each pays for land 
and building twenty thousand dollars. Both churches are alike in size ; and both 
are filled. The service each renders the State is identical in value. At the end 
of forty years, Paul's church stands in the village where it was placed. Peter's 
church is now in the centre of a city, built up by the toils and ris^ks of a heavily- 
taxed population of all creeds and of no creed. Peter now proposes to sell his 
church for two hundred thoiftand dollars ; the land upon which it stands having 
acquired that value for commercial purposes. Whereupon Paul calls upon his legis- 
lator, and makes this just complaint: — 

"While favoring our churches with a special privilege, I beg that you will take 
care to favor them equally. Peter and I have rendered precisely the same service ; 
yet, through your interference, Peter proposes to possess himself of a large sum of 
money, nine-tenths of which he has in no way earned. I have only the twenty 
thousand dollars that I earned by labor (for my church will bring no more if put 
into the market) wherewith to evangelize the world with my scriptural. Calvinism. 
To be sure, I hold that sum untouched, through your privilege of exemption from 
taxation ; but Peter asserts that this same privilege has given him ten times the 
amount wherewith to forward his unscriptural Romanism. I ask you to do jastice 
between us." 

Now, if our supposed legislator be worthy to exercise his function, I hold that 
he must reply substantially thus : — 



" My design was obviously to exempt from taxation the savings of a man's la- 
bor, provided he built a church with them. I also desired to assure church-mem- • 
bers that they should never be driven from their fomiliar houses of worship by taxes 
assessed upon their increasing value as potential store-lots. I could do this justly 
only upon the ground that they \Vere consecrated to sacred uses, and were not 
potential store-lots. It is evident that I never contemplated your churches as mar- 
ketable commodities So long as both are used for religious purposes, there is no 
^discrimination between you ; but now x^eter proposes to turn into cash not only the 
value of his own labor, exempted from all taxation, but the value of other people's 
labor, which he claims to hold under a' similar privilege. He has no right to do this. 
I exempted the value of his land as a perpetual church-lot, never as a future store- 
lot. In assuming that he was possessed of this latter value, he uses my exeniptlon 
privilege to gain a great advantage over Paul, and to appropriate wealth for which 
he has given no compensation. I therefore decree, that, if Peter chooses to sell his 
church, he shall take his oiiginal twenty thousand dollars, untaxed and untouched, 
and put them to such religious work as he shall elect. Or, if he asserts that his 
shrewdness in selecting this church-site, now so valuable as a store-site, deserves 
compensation, he may receive it on the same terms that all other citizens take the 
increased value of their estates, — by showing receipts for back tax-bills." 

I think that every disinterested person must admit that such a decision would 
carry out the intention of our exemption-laws, and bear some relation to equity and 
common sense. Let us proceed to apply the principles that have been considered 
to the case of 

The Old South Church. 

A little more than a year ago, a majority of the proprietors of the Old South 
petitioned the Legislature for leave to lease that historical church to the United 
States Government for a posfc-otfice. Let me recall the circumstances under which 
that petition was presented. Boston had just been visited by an apjialling calamity. 
The Legislature was hastily summoned to lend any aid that might be possible in 
that hour of her great distress. From the general ruin and confusion that suc- 
ceeded the conflagration, the Po.'^t-Office had taken temporary refuge in Faneuil 
Hall. It was urged that the functions of this important institution, vital to the 
religious, social, and busmcss interests of the afflicted city, should not be cramped 
by the unsuitable situation to which it had been driven. Postmaster Burt came 
before the committee of the Legislature with the statement that the Old South 
Church was " the only available central position " for the temporary use of the 
Post-Office. I ij^uote the exact words of his plea as given in the jourmil? of the 
day, " The Government has decided that the Old South Church is the only place 
they can go to ; and it will be bad policy to refuse to allow them to have it.^' 
And the decision of the Legislature, resulting, it must be supposed, from the weight 
justly due to the testimony of Gren. Burt, was a corroot Qn,o. All private interests, 
be they theological, business, or sentimental, should be sacrificed to the general 
good upon occasions of unexpected calamity. Wha-teyer place th^ Government had 



10 

decided was " the only place tbej could go to" to render proper postal service to 
.tbe citizens of Boston in tliat day of their distress, the Legislature of Massachusetts 
might well consider itself bound to grant. It is to be especially noted, that the 
action of the Legislature of 1872 concerning the Old South Church is no precedent 
for further legislative action, and does not furnish the slightest presumption of in- 
tention concerning its final disposition. 

But if the action of the General Court admits of a satisfactory explanation, and 
one that all citizens who respect their government are bound to put upon it, hov^ 
shall we explain the storm of indignant remonstrance which greeted the proprietors' 
petition ? It was owing to the motive that was perceived to animate their move- 
ment. It was clear that they designed to shelter themselves behind the excuse of a 
sudden public necessity, in order that they might with safety outrage the sentiment 
and the property of the community. These proprietors (already enjoying an income 
of forty-four thousand dollars per annum) asked permission to lease their old church 
for two years for forty-six thousand dollars, in the hope, that, by its sale, they might 
possess themselves of a yet larger sum, to which they had no equitable title. The 
Merchant of Venice thought " there was much kindness in the Jew " who offered 
him a loan in the day of his necessity. Tbe merchants of Boston were not quite so 
simple. The loan offered them by these Christian proprietors was to be paid for 
• by a usury that Shylock himself might have blushed to ask. 

Then came dignified remonstrances from the Congregational clergy, protests from 
the leading citizens of Boston, a general condemnation from the higher portion of 
the press, and a shower of small jests and sarcasms, in which the feelings of the 
general community sought relief. It was asserted that the difference between the 
sin of selling doves in the gates of the temple, and letting the temple itself as a post- 
office, was not discernible to the- carnal mind. It was asked that the inscription 
that these propiietors had set upon the old church, giving the year of its " desecra- 
tion " by British troops, should be followed by another record, proclainnng the date 
of the second " desecration," the names of its " desecrators," and how much they 
got for it. It was not right to say these things. Aggrieved persons should have 
hearkened to the counsel of the Psalmist, and declined to sit " in the seat of the 
scornful." We can only excuse them by remembering, that when the seat in ques- 
tion is, as it were, stuffed and padded with all the resources known to eucleslastical 
upholstery, it takes a pretty good man to keep out of it. 

At a meeting of the Orthodox ministers of Boston, a remonstrance against the 
actions of the proprietors was carried by a majority of twenty-nine affirmative over 
three negative votes. Distinguished divines of that faith, represented by the 
honored names of Leonard Bacon, Theodore G. Woolsey, and Noah Porter, added 
weight to the disapproval of the local clergy. The press throughout the country 
expressed an indignation, which found its climax when " The New York Nation," 
" unused to the melting mood," experienced an attack of commendable " sentimeut- 
alism." 

And the rumor of the day did no wrong to the parties who style themselves " Pro- 
prietors of the Old South Church." They now propose to carry out their pro- 
gramme with all convenient expedition. By a vote standing twenty-three in the 



11 

affirmative to ten in the negative (let this dissenting minority be alv^ays honorably 
reiiiembored) they come before the Legislature for leave to sell the church. 1 
desire to put this modest petition into plainer words. The Legislature is asked tc 
lay a tax of some half-million of dollars up:-)n the people, for the benefit of an 
ecclesiastical corporation from whose views of religious truth an immense majority 
of them dissent. I contend that the money that the >Ltssachusetts Legislature has 
permitted these proprietors to receive from the. General Government constitutes not 
only a most generous equivalent for the value of their church-site on the day when 
jMadam Norton gave to it them, but will cover whatever value there may be in ihe 
bricks and other materials of the Old South, after deducting the expense of taking 
it down. And, if the proprietors abandon the church by their own act, I assert 
that this is all that a reasonable interpretation of our exemption-law should permit 
them to carry oft*. It requires but little consideration to see that the sudden crea- 
tion of competing store-sites for the benefit of an ecclesiastical corporation is equiv- 
alent to an impost upon tax-paying citizens. The half-million of dollars which 
a business-firm might give for the Old South lot must be taken from the floating 
capital that would otherwise remunerate the risks, and reimburse the outlay of 
tax-payers ; for, if this church-lot was not to be had, it is clear that the money 
that would be paid for it must be expended in purchasing business facilities from 
the holders of taxed real estate, and through them be distributed among the 
people in just compensation for their sacrifices and labors. 

But it may be urged, that it is very hard that this wealthy corporation should not 
be permitted to appropriate half a million of the people's money, seeing that other 
ecelcsiastical bodies have made off with value to which their title was no more satis- 
factory. To which it may be answered, that, according to all sound ethical writers, 
if a thing be wrong, no citation of precedents can make it right. The boy wlvo 
was caught carrying ofi' the fish whose tail protimded beneath his jacket was much 
distressed that some of his companions, who were content with taking shorter fishes, 
escaped the notice of the policeman. The judge, however, did not recognize the 
cogency of this aftectirig defence. When public indignation was excited by the 
scandalous " back pay grab" of 'the last Congress, the ready apology was tbrth- 
comiug, that the same thing had been done before on a smaller scale, and had 
excited no marked rebuke. This was very true ; and it is also true that the excuse 
was worth nothing in the judgment of right-thinking persons. It was further urged, 
in palliation of the congressmen's "grab, " that it was made under legal forms; 
the members using powers, which, under the law, they undoubtedly possessed. But 
the proprietors of the Old South Church do not offer the poor apology t^iat any law 
gives them the power to make this levy upon the public. They come before Mas- 
sachusetts legislators to ask permission to lay this assessment upon their constitu- 
ents. In the case of the congressional "grab," the people were graciously 
permitted to tax the money which their representatives appropriated. Let it never 
be forgotten, that, when the -'grabbing " is done by an ecclesiastical corporation, the 
sum secured may be ])ut beyond the reach of all taxation, and the people annually 
assessed for the benefit of its appropriators. 

It has been said that the Old South is wanted for bubiuess-purpuses. if that 



LIBRftRY OF CONGRESS 



1 o iilllllllllillllillllllllllllllillllillli 

014 014 376 5 

were true, its value for business-purposes should be paid into the public treasur^ 
to lessen the fiscal burdens of the people. Undoubtedly, churches are sometimes \ 
in the way of street-widening, and other necessary improvements. When they \ 
are taken for these objects, against the wishes of their congregations, government 1 
should provide equally good church-buildings in convenient localities. Any claim 
for further value is preposterous. But is the Old South wanted for business-pur- 
poses ? I think that it is wanted for business-purposes in precisely the sense in which 
Dr. Beecher's old church is wanted for Terpsichorean purposes, and Boston Com- 
mon is wanted for house-lots. We cannot too soon rid ourselves of the fallacy 
that the interests of the community in a given piece of land are to be measured by 
the price which an individual will pay for a monopoly of it. Mr. Barnum would 
give a very high rent for the use of AVestminster Abbey as a circus and menagerie ; 
but it would be an abuse of language to say that the people of London tvanted 
their cathedral for tbose purposes. 

But the Congregational clergy tell us that the Old South is wanted for religious 
uses ; and their o]):nion deserves respect. Is it not in the place, of all others, 
where a cl lurch is wanted? A writer in the last " Westminster Review " perti- 
nently asks, " How is it that we build our churches where we sleep, and not where, 
in the proper sense of the word, we live ? How is it that the idea of retiring from 
the world's friction and temptation, to the seclusion and quiet of God's house to 
pray, excites a smile? Is it not a proof that we make religion a thing to be 
donned with our Sunday clothes, and reserved for special occasions ? " I am sure 
that there are religious teachers in Boston who can fill the Old South every 
Sunday and several evenings in the week. When all just claims of these alleged 
proprietors have been satisfied, the church would seem to belong to the people : it 
Uiight be kept as a sort of sacred Faneuil Hall, where good men of every name 
and creed could preach the truth, that was in them. Let this go as a suggestion 
which I do not press. If the Congregational clergy can show that they have a 
peculiar claim upon the old church, after its abandonment by the proprietors, no 
.doubt they will put it to good use. 

Although it has seemed to me right to state tke case of the people against this 
wealthy corporation in as strong language as the facts would justify, I make no 
imputation against the motives of individuals who compose it. Honorable and 
good men, acting as members of a corporate body, have, before now, appropriated 
to their sectarian uses value which no just interpretation of our exemption-laws 
can be stretched to cover. They helped themselves upon a comparatively small 
scale, outraged no public sentiment, and, I suppose, experienced no twinge of 
conscience. It probably never occurred to them that theii* title was not good 
to all they could get off with unchallenged. And here, in truth, lies the most 
alarming feature of the matter. When the assumption, now prevailing, that the 
people have no rights which moneyed corporations are bound to respect, has reached 
those bodies who profess to be the especial guardians of religion and morality, it is 
time for the legislator to give redress. 



LIbHAHY Ul- UUNUKbbb 




014 014 376 5 O 



Hollingei' 
pH S3 



